NASA iTech and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) are collaborating on a unique competition to identify transformational energy technologies that can address critical problems here on Earth that also hold great potential to solve critical technology challenges in future space exploration.  On that list: fission reactors.

NASA and ARPA-E are seeking to identify the nation’s top entrepreneurs and researchers to present their innovative technologies to address energy-specific challenges. A few examples of technology sub-themes that NASA believes have the potential to improve future space power systems include, but are not limited to:

  • Small Fission Power Systems
  • Fuel Cells and Regenerative Fuel Cells
  • High-energy Density Batteries and Supercapacitors
  • Solar Power Systems
  • Innovative Power Management and Distribution (including smart grids and wireless power transfer)
  • X-Factor Energy: innovations so compelling NASA and ARPA-E should know about them

Through April 29, 2018, inventors and entrepreneurs can submit a five-page white paper on their concept on the NASA iTech website.  A panel of subject matter experts from NASA and ARPA-E will review ideas submitted and select the top 10 finalists based on their relevance and potential impact to present at the upcoming 2018 iTech Energy Cycle.

The initial top 25 semi-finalists for this energy-focused cycle will be announced on May 10, 2018. The top 10 finalists will be announced on May 25, 2018. Those finalists will be invited to present their technologies and engage with NASA and ARPA-E subject matter experts, potential investors, and industry partners at the NASA iTech 2018 Energy Forum in New York City, June 11-14, 2018.

The ARPA-E at the U.S. Department of Energy provides R&D funding for transformational ideas to create America’s future energy technologies. ARPA-E focuses exclusively on early-stage technologies that could fundamentally change the way we generate, use, and store energy.

NASA iTech is an initiative sponsored by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate and managed by the National Institute of Aerospace in Hampton, Virginia.  “NASA iTech has proven to be a successful public-private partnership model for stimulating the development of ground-breaking technologies, without the government being the early investor,” said Kira Blackwell, NASA iTech program executive in the Space Technology Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Previous entrants to NASA iTech have already raised more than $50 million in private investment funds.”  The NASA announcement is here.  For more information about the NASA iTech initiative, visit here.  For information about the Space Technology Mission Directorate, visit here.

Please contact one of the authors with any questions.

On April 4, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Regulatory Guide 1.232, Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non-Light Water Reactors.  The regulatory guide’s generic set of Advanced Reactor Design Criteria cover most non-light-water technologies. The guide also includes technology-specific criteria for sodium-cooled fast reactors and high temperature gas-cooled reactors.

The regulatory guide describes how the general design criteria (GDC) set forth in Part 50 of the NRC’s regulations may be adapted for non-light-water reactor (non-LWR) designs. The guidance may be used by non-LWR reactor applicants to develop principal design criteria for any non-LWR designs, as required under the NRC nuclear power plant regulations. Notably, the guide can be used by advanced reactor designers to align their concepts with relevant NRC regulations for nuclear power plants, and will assist the NRC staff when reviewing future license applications.

We had previously written about the draft regulatory guide published by the NRC last year here.  As we noted then, this is an important document that deserves close attention by the advanced reactor community.  It provides one of the first detailed insights into how the NRC views advanced reactors, how far it is willing to step away from the GDC framework, and what it finds of importance from a safety perspective for advanced reactors.

For questions on the guidance, please contact one of the authors.

The White House released its long-awaited infrastructure plan outline last week.  Leaving aside the funding proposals, the plan sets forth a number of potential revisions to the environmental permitting process for new infrastructure projects that may deserve a closer look (these are found in Part III of the infrastructure plan outline).  Hogan Lovells has issued a detailed review of the broader infrastructure plan here, but we wanted to also briefly touch on a few points that could potentially impact the environmental review and permitting process for next-generation reactors by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

A number of these proposals as to environmental permitting have been floating around for a number of years, many on both sides of the aisle, and in particular concern the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  Even if the President’s proposal itself does not move forward, a number of them may find themselves in any final infrastructure bill or future legislation:

    • Section 3(I)(A) – NEPA & Permitting Timelines: The proposal would establish a 21-month timeline for an agency’s NEPA review, and a 24-month permitting process from start to finish. The idea of setting deadlines for agency permitting actions has historically faced significant pushback over the years for a number of reasons—one being that this may encourage agencies to deny permits as a default when the deadline arrives.  However, there have been successful cases where statutory timelines have led to efficient agency processing of permits.  For example the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews complex foreign investment transactions into the United States for national security risks in a one-to-three month timespan.  Done properly amidst other reforms to NEPA, a timeline for NEPA reviews can lead to significant permitting efficiencies.
    • Section 3(I)(B)(2) – Tailoring Discussion of Alternatives: One interesting proposal is tailoring the “Alternatives” discussion of a NEPA analysis.  The “Alternatives” analysis is often termed the “heart” of NEPA, and “rigorously explores and objectively evaluates all reasonable alternatives including the proposed action.”  It also drives a lot of the length of NEPA reviews, and is in need of reform.  One issue is that agencies end up spending significant time and capital evaluating alternatives to a project that are not practically up for consideration or commercially feasible.  The infrastructure plan proposes to exclude from NEPA “Alternatives” analyses those options “outside [the permitting agency’s] authority or outside the capability of the applicant.”  A large part of nuclear plant environmental reviews concern alternatives that are simply not going to be pursued.  Done right, a review of the scope of “Alternatives” analyses could yield significant benefits.
    • Section 3(III)(A) – Performance-Based Pilot Projects: This program would select 10 projects to be evaluated along “environmental performance measures” in lieu of the typical NEPA process.  The project applicant would commit to meet environmental parameters set by the lead federal reviewing agency (in this case the NRC) with public and interagency input.  The program would “focus on good environmental outcomes rather than a lengthy environmental review process.”  Candidates for the pilot program would be chosen “based on project size, national or regional significance, and opportunities for environmental enhancements.”

New nuclear reactor projects would be well-situated to be selected for such pilot programs.  Moreover, the NRC has significant experience in pursuing performance-based regulation, as it has been attempting to implement a more performance-based regulatory framework for nuclear safety issues for some time.  It could be a strong pilot lead agency to implement this concept for environmental reviews.

    • Section 3(IV) – Judicial Review: The infrastructure plan proposes significant changes to the framework for reviewing NEPA determinations.  Among them is a proposal to limit injunctions to “exceptional circumstances.”  The courts have already cut back on injunctions in NEPA cases since a seminal Supreme Court decision in Winter v NRDC (which also eliminated the notion that an injunction is automatic after a NEPA violation).  However, the threat of a NEPA injunctions drives agencies to ‘throw in the kitchen sink’ in their NEPA reviews to prevent such a deleterious outcome, greatly driving up review time and cost.  Reducing the threat of injunctions when agencies conduct reasonable reviews will certainly be controversial, but if done right could allow agencies to focus on the key environmental issues and only supplement their review when needed.

Another proposed change to the NEPA judicial review process would be to provide more certainty that data collected the first time around remains valid over time.  Agencies would be instructed to develop guidance regarding when new, more current data is required for a NEPA review as time passes, and courts would defer to this guidance.  This provision may face legal challenges, but targets another area where agencies are forced to do more than may be legally required in order to avoid a court injunction.  The process of data gathering, especially for nuclear projects, is time consuming and costly, and represents an area where greater certainty can markedly reduce permitting costs.

Apart from the environmental permitting modifications, a number of the funding programs could also prove beneficial for next-generation reactors if developed further.  This includes, for example, $20 billion set aside for a “Transformative Projects Program” for “bold, innovative, and transformative infrastructure projects” that face unique risks but otherwise could be commercially viable.  Such programs could bring much-needed financing to new reactor developers looking to bridge the funding “valley of death” before a first plant is constructed.

For more on the White House infrastructure plan, or on environmental permitting for nuclear reactors, please contact the authors.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing February 6, 2018 to discuss the challenges facing America’s nuclear infrastructure, including advanced reactor development.  The hearing was called “DOE Modernization: Advancing the Economic and National Security Benefits of America’s Nuclear Infrastructure.” A video of the hearing can be watched here.

A background memorandum released in advance explained that the hearing would explore the following important topics:

  • National security implications associated with U.S. nuclear leadership and a domestic nuclear energy industry;
  • The outlook for domestic and international development of nuclear energy and application of nuclear technologies;
  • Challenges and opportunities regarding maintaining the components of a domestic nuclear fuel cycle; and
  • Options to develop and deploy advanced nuclear technologies

The hearing witnesses included (their statements are also provided below):

  • Mr. Art Atkins, Associate Deputy Administrator for Global Material Security, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration: Witness Statement
  • Mr. Victor McCree, Executive Director of Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Witness Statement
  • Mr. Ed McGinnis, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy: Witness Statement
  • Mr. James Owendoff, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management: Witness Statement
  • Dr. Ashley Finan, Policy Director, Nuclear Innovation Alliance: Witness Statement
  • Ms. Maria Korsnick, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute: Witness Statement
  • The Honorable Bill Ostendorff, Former NRC Commissioner and Distinguished Visiting Professor of National Security, U.S. Naval Academy: Witness Statement
  • Dr. Mark Peters, Director, Idaho National Laboratory: Witness Statement
  • Mr. David Trimble, Director, Government Accountability Office, Natural Resources and Environment: Witness Statement

Summary of Key Issues for Advanced Reactor Community

During his opening remarks, Full Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) noted that “[a]t root today, is a question of our nation’s capabilities not only to propel nuclear innovation generally, but to ensure an infrastructure that is critical to our economic and our national security.” He promised to align U.S. policy with a changing world: “we must recognize the world looks different than it did at the birth of the nuclear age. Consequently, we must take steps to update the relevant policies. These policies must be forward looking to enable innovation and the development and deployment of new advanced nuclear technologies.”

Once witness questioning began, the Subcommittee quickly honed in on issues facing the advanced reactor community and expressed bipartisan support for U.S. government help to develop and deploy these innovative new designs. Among the issues discussed were the following:

  • SMR commercialization and deployment schedule

The first question asked at the hearing, by Subcommittee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), was on small modular reactor (SMR) commercialization and when the U.S. was going to see SMR designs being approved and deployed in the commercial sector. In response, Ed McGinnis, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy explained: “We are at a tipping point,” with the U.S. leading in design development but challenged in deployment of the technologies. He went on to note that NuScale project that can be “game changing” if successfully deployed.

Last year, reactor designer NuScale submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission the first SMR reactor design certification application  in the United States. The NRC recently approved–in a first of a kind decision–that NuScale would not need a safety-related electrical power system. This means that the NRC believes the reactor can remain in a safe condition in the event it loses electricity. Currently, all nuclear power plants in the U.S. have safety-related electrical power systems. And the fact that NuScale does not need one is a testament to the inherent different nature of SMRs—and the first time the NRC has recognized as such during its review of an application.

On that front, Victor McCree, the NRC’s Executive Director of Operations, explained during the hearing that the NRC’s decision about NuScale reflects a “philosophical” change that will lead to more efficient and effective reviews. Mr. McCree continued on to explain that an NRC approval of the NuScale design would open the market in a way that large reactors cannot, including by being more affordable and improving grid reliability. Mr. McGinnis further explained that with a number of large-scale reactors facing shutdown, getting SMRs into the pipeline is an imperative, and among other things, DOE was working on integrating SMRs with wind turbines and solar plants. With SMRs versatility and fast ramp up ability, Mr. McGinnis explained, SMRs could be paired with renewables to firm up their intermittent power and delivery of emissions free power.

  • Concern with amount of DOE funding to support SMR commercialization and deployment

Several members expressed concern that—with less than US$30 million invested in advanced reactors—whether DOE is really pushing for commercialization of SMRs. In response, Mr. McGinnis noted that a lot of work was being performed at the national labs and DOE continues to work on deployment matters.

  • High-assay LEU and Test Reactors

Mr. McGinnis from DOE also explained that DOE was working towards development of a fast neutron reactor and growing a capacity for high-assay LEU. Mr. McGinnis acknowledged that next-generation nuclear innovators need a test reactor, which itself would require high-assay LEU. He added that NNSA is taking seriously the challenge of developing a high-assay LEU capacity for testing and eventual industry use.

  • Deployment of US SMRs overseas

A number of members asked about deployment of US SMRs abroad. In response, Mr. McGinnis remarked that a number of countries are interested in U.S. SMR designs and watching their progress. He remarked that the U.S. is the world expert in designing SMRs, and that if the U.S. was able to prove the technology domestically it would open up the international market. The hearing participants also discussed ways to speed up the U.S. nuclear export approval process. On that last point, Congressman Bill Johnson (R-OH) noted that he intended to introduce legislation soon to improve the export control authorization process. At the end of 2017, Chairman Upton and Congressman Johnson sent a letter to Energy Secretary Rick Perry saying that the slow pace of DOE authorizations for commercial nuclear energy exports is having harmful consequences for U.S. competitiveness and national security. “While DOE is in the process of implementing some targeted reforms, more work remains to accelerate agency decision-making so that our domestic nuclear technology leaders have timely answers necessary to compete effectively with other nations’ nuclear programs,” the letter said.

  • NRC fee reform

When asked about if the NRC is undergoing reviews of its fee structure and looking for ways to improve methodology especially when non-LWR reactors look for licensing, Mr. McCree confirmed that the NRC is looking at this issue.

With a flurry of attention on advanced reactors lately, the hearing brings welcome attention the advanced reactor community needs. Please contact the authors with any questions.

The Department of Energy (DOE) and Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) have issued a trio of reports touching on important issues for small modular and advanced reactors:

The debut of these three reports so closely apart highlights the variety of issues new reactor developers have to work through simultaneously, from licensing to fuel supply to market dynamics.

The first report recognizes a common industry complaint—that although the legal standard for issuing new reactor licenses has not changed, in reality “the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] now requires more effort from applicants” to meet that same standard—even when new reactor designs are inherently safer.  The report recommends that the NRC:

  • Refrain from asking for design details that do not have a nexus to safety (shortening review times);
  • Modernize design requirements to “be more systematic, predictable and repeatable”;
  • Establish predictable staged licensing pathways; and
  • Reign in unnecessary detail in setting a plant licensing basis to allow for more flexibility to make changes during construction.

The second report tackles a sleeping giant, the lack of a pathway to high-assay low-enriched uranium (high-assay LEU) (that is, uranium enriched between 5% to 20% with fissile elements).  While there is no prohibition to commercial access to high-assay LEU, there is also currently no domestic source for this fuel type.  Current fuel cycle facilities are capped legally (and sometimes physically) to work with ~5% enriched LEU.  This is a bottleneck to realizing the promise of advanced reactors, as developing the infrastructure for this industry will require “a minimum of seven to nine years.”  The report recommends that DOE and NRC collaboratively:

  • Support development of new shipping packages capable of holding high-assay LEU;
  • Develop “criticality benchmark data needed” to enable the private sector to license high-assay LEU “facilities and transport packages”;
  • Directly support the design of high-assay LEU facilities and fuel types; and
  • Finalize guidance documents on Material Control and Accountability and physical security for “Category II” facilities that contain high-assay LEU.

The third report follows hot on the heels of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s decision to terminate a rulemaking proposed by DOE Secretary Perry that would establish a resiliency pricing scheme for baseload generation sources, including nuclear.  The DOE-commissioned report provides additional evidence for the resiliency benefits of nuclear power, but is more focused on the benefits of small modular reactors (SMRs) to support federal and military facilities; in particular, forward operating bases that often rely on uncertain civilian grids and/or trucked in fuel.  The report notes that SMRs are naturally hardened due to their underground construction and passive safety systems, are designed to provide scalable power that is reliable and grid-independent, and can provide years’ worth of fuel security—making them ideal for many national security contexts.

Despite its national security theme, the DOE-commissioned report suggests a novel solution to support SMRs that is based on the civilian sector—by engaging DOE support as a customer for the Tennessee Valley Authority small modular reactor project at Clinch River.  According to the report, DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and related facilities could rely on SMRs’ unique, resilient power for their mission-critical activities, use the SMRs for nuclear research, and at the same time help bring first-generation SMR technologies to market.  The report details a hypothetical transaction structure to support DOE involvement in the Clinch River project, and closes with other policy initiatives to complement this effort.

For more about the benefits and key issues facing next-generation nuclear reactors, please contact the authors.

Nuclear power has had a busy year in 2017.  One of the most important trends for preserving the existing fleet of operating nuclear power plants has been the financial commitment  by US states to support nuclear power operating in their states and preserve their largest source of carbon-free power—and the thousands of jobs that go with it. This represents a significant reversal in state policy towards nuclear power, which traditionally has been left out of state programs promoting low or carbon free power—despite the fact that 60 percent of the carbon free power in the U.S. is generated by nuclear power. And the new state involvement has the potential to be a game-changer for next-generation reactors.

To highlight some of the key state activities from this year:

  • New York’s Clean Energy Standard and Illinois’s SB 2814, with their Zero-Emissions Credit (ZEC) programs, came into effect this year.  These programs represent among the first significant state efforts to  compensate nuclear power for its environmental benefits, and has helped keep a large number of nuclear power plants operational. Ohio has also introduced legislation to implement similar ZEC-type programs.
  • Federal district courts separately upheld both New York’s and Illinois’s ZEC programs against federal pre-emption and Constitutional challenges. Both decisions have been appealed, but nonetheless allow the state programs to continue in the interim.
  • Connecticut passed legislation that would allow nuclear power to compete directly against other zero-carbon resources in certain circumstances.
  • New Jersey introduced and advanced legislation to support nuclear power through “nuclear diversity certificates,” which would support the nuclear reactors for their environmental and fuel diversity attributes.

The core of many of these programs is valuing the benefits of nuclear power using the “social cost of carbon” framework. The social cost of carbon represents a potential measure of the harms caused by carbon emissions (and therefore, the value of carbon avoided by zero emissions generation). It was developed by a federal government interagency working group and has found itself increasingly referenced as part of state climate initiatives.

Although these programs directly benefit the current light water reactor fleet, it also signifies a larger trend by states to put nuclear power on an equal footing to other forms of low or zero-carbon generation sources.  This trend cannot be ignored by the advanced reactor industry. Just as renewable energy grew through state-level efforts to support the industry through renewable energy credit programs and portfolio standards, next generation reactor developers may want to look to states along with the federal government as potential sponsors for first-of-a-kind reactor projects.

These activities also explore the myriad different legal routes states can pursue to support the environmental and societal benefits of nuclear power. The U.S. energy grid is an ecosystem with many state, regional, and federal actors all working together to provide electricity at low cost and in accordance with legitimate policy goals. Disputes are likely to arise (and have arisen) as to where the borders between state and federal involvement. But that does not change the fact that states have always had a role in the in the promotion and regulation of nuclear power. An opportunity now exists to redefined that relationship, and for a new generation of state leaders to reengage with a new generation of reactor developers, for the benefit of all involved.

For more on state legislative activities affecting nuclear power, please contact the authors.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has moved forward in developing initial regulatory positions on next-generation reactors, and reaffirming the value of its international cooperation efforts.

In support of its December 14th periodic meeting on small modular reactor (SMR) and advanced reactor regulatory reform, the agency has issued two draft papers for which it is soliciting feedback: one on siting considerations, and one on designing containment systems.  This is in addition to a December 13 meeting on physical security, for which the NRC issued a draft paper for review in November.

The draft paper on siting considerations tackles an interesting issue—the siting of nuclear reactors next to population centers.  The NRC has had “a long standing policy of siting reactors away from densely populated centers,” but this is based on traditional, large light water reactor designs.  Even though such reactors are safe, some governments have taken hardline positions as to siting these reactors next to large population centers (e.g., Indian Point).  Advanced reactors reopen this issue.  The Commission has stated in the past that for next-generation reactors, “siting a reactor closer to a densely populated city than is current NRC practice would pose a very low risk to the populace.”  And as reactor designs are starting to take shape and prove themselves even safer than expected, revisiting this policy can open up a lot of new geographic options for advanced reactors.  To note, the issue of siting of advanced reactors relates to emergency planning considerations, a topic we have covered recently here.  Apart from siting though, all the papers present multiple opportunities for interested parties to comment on developing regulatory issues.

Moving abroad, in this staff paper, the NRC reaffirmed participation with the Halden Reactor Project, located in Norway.  The research reactor is managed by  the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technology, but operates under the auspices of the Nuclear Energy Agency as a “cooperatively funded international research and development project.”  The NRC has a long-standing relationship with Halden and reaffirmed its commitment to it, which includes roughly $1.5 million of funding.  The paper explains that international cooperation greatly leverages agency funds, with a 15-1 return on investment through participation in the project.

Although not unexpected here, the NRC’s reaffirmation of international cooperation nonetheless is another indication of the now global nature of the industry, especially for advanced reactors.  But the U.S. government can do more to promote international cooperation in nuclear development.  Innovation in next-generation nuclear reactors is global, with, for example, URENCO’s U-Battery venture yesterday announcing an agreement with Bruce Power (a Canadian utility).  This includes scoping “the potential deployment of micro nuclear reactors across Canada, including Bruce Power being the owner and/or operator of a fleet of U-Battery units.”  Other Advanced Reactor global partnerships include TerraPower in China and Lightbridge and Areva,  Recently, two Congressmen penned a letter to the Department of Energy expressing serious concern with the slow pace of permitting in relation to nuclear technology cooperation, and recognizing that the slow pace of approvals of nuclear technology exports hinders nuclear commerce and U.S. competitiveness in the field.

Hopefully, the federal government can turn to doing more to promote international cooperation and support.  Just yesterday, the Department of Commerce published a notice of an upcoming U.S.-Saudi Arabia nuclear energy roundtable.  The goal of the event is “to initiate a partnership process between U.S. civil nuclear energy companies and the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (K.A.CARE), and between the U.S. and [Saudi] civil nuclear industries.”  It presents a promising opportunity for the U.S. to regain a dominant role in new nuclear construction, as Saudi Arabia is pushing forward with an effort to develop almost 18 GW of new nuclear in the country by the mid-2030s.

For more on the recent NRC publications on regulatory reform, or recent international attention to nuclear energy, please contact the authors.

On Wednesday, November 15, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff published a revised and final regulatory basis document in support of its rulemaking to reform emergency planning requirements for small modular and advanced reactors, including medical isotope reactors.  This rulemaking promises to significantly reduce costs for next generation nuclear plants by employing individualized, risk-informed requirements as opposed to rigid deterministic ones.

Fifty-seven individuals, companies, and organizations commented on the draft regulatory basis document.  The NRC staff made a number of edits to respond to the comments, including further incorporating risk-informed concepts into the text of the regulatory basis, and increasing discussion of the agency’s framework for establishing the size of emergency planning zones for new reactor designs.  According to the NRC’s rulemaking schedule, a proposed rule is due to be published early 2019, with a final rule in 2020.

This action by the NRC coincides with exciting developments for the US Department of Energy.  This week the Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) at Idaho National Laboratories successfully completed low-power operations after being brought out of standby since 1994.  As explained in industry press, the restart of TREAT is a big success story for the agency, which refurbished the facility a year ahead of schedule and $20 million under budget.  TREAT specializes in testing new reactor fuels under heavy irradiation conditions, to see how they perform particularly in accident scenarios.  Testing new fuel designs is a linchpin to commercializing new reactor designs, as many of them rely on completely new concepts for nuclear fuel.

TREAT may also be getting company.  This same week, the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology approved an exciting new bill markup, HR 4378, the “Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act of 2017.”  This piece of legislation tries to deliver on repeated calls to build a new test reactor in the United States.  It calls for a fast-neutron test facility to be completed in the mid-2020s that supports (among other things) high-temperature testing, testing of different coolant types, medical isotope production, and which is designed to be upgrade-able over time.  Funding is set aside, with $35 million in 2018, scaling up to $350 million from 2023 to 2025.

For more on any of these topics, feel free to contact the authors.

Highlighting how government support can positively benefit a transformative, nascent industry, Canada has again taken a lead role in support small modular reactor (SMR) development.  The country has already garnered significant attention through its pre-licensing vendor design review process, in which seven advanced reactor ventures are participating and many more have expressed interest.  But in October, the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) also released a report entitled “Perspectives on Canada’s SMR Opportunity,” which discusses the labs’ SMR strategy and responses to a request for information.

The report proves an interesting read and a useful resource for other countries or institutions looking to promote SMRs and advanced reactors.  It analyses the 80 submissions provided from across the industry.  Among other things, the report discusses the various benefits of SMRs, the types of reactors being developed, benefits to Canada, and comments related to how to efficiently regulate SMR innovation.  It also builds on CNL’s efforts to promote SMRs and advanced reactors—in 2017 CNL released a long-term strategy for its Chalk River Site, including a $1.2 billion push to promote the development of next-generation reactors.

For more about Canada’s work with SMRs and advanced reactors, please contact the authors.

On Friday, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary of Energy Rick Perry proposed a dramatic change to U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-regulated energy markets.  His rule would compensate “reliability and resiliency” resources potentially both on a market rate and/or a cost-of-service rate.  He has put forward a tight timeline for the rule, directing FERC to make a final action on the proposed rule within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, or alternatively, to adopt the current rule as an interim measure to be modified in the future.  A complete analysis of the rule by Hogan Lovells can be found here.

Although geared towards existing nuclear and coal power plants, in the long term advanced reactors could be well-positioned to benefit from the new rule.  It is unclear if this rule will stem the tide of coal plant retirements, and without coal, nuclear power for the most part will be the only remaining generation source capable of meeting the requirements to benefit under the rule (e.g., eligible generation sources must have 90 days-worth of fuel on site).

Comments will be collected on the rule for 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.  We encourage all next-generation nuclear providers to get involved and comment on the new rule.  Instead of a short-term measure to support existing resources, this rule should be seen as a fundamental recognition of one of the many uncompensated for benefits of nuclear power.  If properly structured, this rule has the potential to support the nascent next-generation nuclear industry as it develops.  For any questions on the proposed rule or how to comment on it, please contact the authors.